Horny toad, while we could debate the criteria, it is what it is currently, and the MWC simply can't meet it realistically. You'd need New Mexico, CSU, & UNLV to all become top 40 teams next year, along with keeping TCU & Utah at their current level.

(11-06-2010 11:47 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Horny toad, while we could debate the criteria, it is what it is currently, and the MWC simply can't meet it realistically. You'd need New Mexico, CSU, & UNLV to all become top 40 teams next year, along with keeping TCU & Utah at their current level.

Exactly, and that's what they don't seem to get. The MWC wasn't going to get an autobid even with Utah, adding Boise MIGHT have given them a chance but losing Utah crippled them, and then losing BYU was the death blow. Now TCU is trying to get into a BCS conference because the MWC is on borrowed times as far as being an upper tier conference.

This rumor has legs:

Idaho Statesman

WAC commissioner Karl Benson doesn't deny that they've been in contact with TCU. If you scroll down, you'll see that MWC commissioner Craig Thompson suggested that maybe there isn't room for three western FBS conferences...and I thought things were ugly before!

(11-06-2010 11:33 PM)Horny Toad Wrote:  

(11-06-2010 11:22 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(11-06-2010 10:59 PM)Horny Toad Wrote:  

(11-06-2010 10:40 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(11-06-2010 10:25 PM)Horny Toad Wrote:  the point is:

C. TCU is in a stong football conference position and have been for 2 2/3s yrs and should still be in that position for the next 1 1/3 yrs for the 2012 BCS evaluation... (hum, this must be the 4th time I'm explaining this.?.) so we know we're going to be in a BCS CONFERENCE within the next 24-30 months whether its BE/MWC/ MWC & C-USA Champ game scenario, plus 1 or 2 others that have been mentioned previously. BCS $s will come and TV contracts too with BCS status(ANNNND again maybe not at BE's present rate.?. )

The MWC does not meet the current criteria for BCS inclusion in 2012, and is not expected to meet it. I'm sure TCU realizes that, but the only way the Frogs are in an auto-bid conference in the next few years is with membership in the Big East.

By the way, congrats on the game today. Very impressive and you could be playing in the big game 2 months from now.

Thanx for the congrates ... Check the information, if BE meets the criteria in 2012... MWC should surly exceed. I'm on the fence on this and see the many positives for the frogs in a move and the potential pitfalls that many sober BE fans have addressed about it's league on this board.

The Big East's AQ bid was earned from 2004-2007 for the years 2008 through 2013. The MWC didn't meet it in those years so is now under a new 4 year criteria from 2008,2009,2010, and 2011 to see if it can be a 7th AQ conference for 2012 and 2013. But the league will still fall short due to the top-to-bottom strength of the conference which even with TCU, Boise, and Nevada will average in the 60s and be far away from the worse AQ conference.

This is what happens when a conference will have 4 of 10 teams who on average rank between 80-118 over a 4 year period. The Big East had only 1 of 8 do that in the period they met the criteria.

The league would need to petition the BCS for exemption based upon meeting the criteria in 2 of the 3 but serving a population that the other AQ conferences do not. But with both Utah and BYU leaving, the only states that the MWC represents that are not already represented by the other AQ conferences are Nevada, Idaho and Wyoming.

If, in the future, the Big East is in need of such an exemption it has past history of qualifying under the criteria and has New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and West Virginia.

Cheers,
Neil

Looks like we all will find out real soon...

This is from the BCS themselves last year when discussing whether or not the MWC would receive and automatic bid, and it proves Neil's comment perfectly:

“When you talk about adding value, from a media standpoint, the Boise States and the Utahs add very little,” said Barry Frank, a media consultant from IMG who worked with the BCS on its new TV deal with ESPN. “They’re not population centers. And speaking from a personal standpoint, in football terms, I can tell you that networks look at them as ‘Johnny-come-latelies’ to the national scene that don’t play the kind of schedules that major conferences play.”

When asked whether or not the MWC's rankings would help this was said:

There’s another scenario in play that could greatly enhance the MWC’s status and perhaps move it onto the same level with the other big six conferences that receive automatic berths into the BCS.

The Mountain West is two years into a four-year evaluation period that measures conference power. It’s based on the strength of the league champion, how many teams are rated in the BCS top 25 and average ranking for the entire conference.

The BCS has not fully divulged what thresholds must be met for the MWC to gain an automatic qualifying berth, which makes the whole process sound eerily like joining a fraternity. But if the MWC could join the big six club, membership would have its privileges and its annual BCS revenue would likely double.

“We look at consistency over time,” Nebraska’s Perlman said. “Looking forward, I don’t know that they change the equation, but certainly their performance over time makes it difficult to not look at them.”

So there was still serious doubt about adding them and that was with BYU and Utah in the fold. That kind of makes me think that the rumor that an insider said a while back, that someone in the BCS told the MWC that losing Utah permanently killed their chances at being a BCS conference are true, and would explain why BYU was willing to go independent and TCU is willing to go as a football-only.

(11-06-2010 11:47 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Horny toad, while we could debate the criteria, it is what it is currently, and the MWC simply can't meet it realistically. You'd need New Mexico, CSU, & UNLV to all become top 40 teams next year, along with keeping TCU & Utah at their current level.

I appreciate your 'trying' to point out your interpretation of criteria generalities. We've never questioned TV set#s nor $s... only '''stength of conferences'''.
1. MWC, check out the AP or BCS for the top 25 the last 2 years(as I believe you know what it is this year... compared to BE....) and keep
in mind the AP writers from the E Coast/M-West dominates the votes. They don't seem to be in denial...
2. 2009 MWC went 4-1 in Bowls with our top team TCU losing to a top 5 team in the Fiesta Bowl & defeating 2 PAC-10 teams in other bowls!
3. Boise matches Utah's 'stength' easily and Nevada/Fresno easily match BYU for 'strength'... so , MWC is loosing 2 of its top 4 teams and adds
3 of the top 4 WAC teams; we need not discuss this one any more...
4. You are welcome to google 'CBS conference power rankings' and the the Nov. 2 rankings are... it wouldn't be appropriate for me to list the results...
lets just say BE is ranked 3 leagues behind MWC. Could only locate only 1 ranking system(CBS) that included both AQ/non AQ conferences...
5. I would be glad to look at any other link on league power rankings you could help me locate... lets avoid any possible computer types please.

As we all know, the conference's performance is the primary criteria and not prefered ESPN viewing areas. The MWC backed out of the ESPN format as they refused to be part of the Wed/Thurs nite scheduling as several of the schools(such as TCU/BYU/AFA) were opposed to it on behalf of student concerns. So you are not going to convince us that we are some little wimpy conference that stands NO chance of being Greatly considered as a serious member in the next BCS evaluation.

So Please, don't try to use Carl Rove fear tactics why TCU must go to the BE, much less accept a partial membership. How about, hey, we like you and want you to be a full partner in our league and if you choose to take non FB athletics else where, then that's OK too..... Toads prefer a little sugar and won't tolerate much salt in the eye... nor would you..?..

(11-07-2010 08:20 PM)Horny Toad Wrote:  

(11-06-2010 11:47 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Horny toad, while we could debate the criteria, it is what it is currently, and the MWC simply can't meet it realistically. You'd need New Mexico, CSU, & UNLV to all become top 40 teams next year, along with keeping TCU & Utah at their current level.

I appreciate your 'trying' to point out your interpretation of criteria generalities. We've never questioned TV set#s nor $s... only '''stength of conferences'''.
1. MWC, check out the AP or BCS for the top 25 the last 2 years(as I believe you know what it is this year... compared to BE....) and keep
in mind the AP writers from the E Coast/M-West dominates the votes. They don't seem to be in denial...
2. 2009 MWC went 4-1 in Bowls with our top team TCU losing to a top 5 team in the Fiesta Bowl & defeating 2 PAC-10 teams in other bowls!
3. Boise matches Utah's 'stength' easily and Nevada/Fresno easily match BYU for 'strength'... so , MWC is loosing 2 of its top 4 teams and adds
3 of the top 4 WAC teams; we need not discuss this one any more...
4. You are welcome to google 'CBS conference power rankings' and the the Nov. 2 rankings are... it wouldn't be appropriate for me to list the results...
lets just say BE is ranked 3 leagues behind MWC. Could only locate only 1 ranking system(CBS) that included both AQ/non AQ conferences...
5. I would be glad to look at any other link on league power rankings you could help me locate... lets avoid any possible computer types please.

As we all know, the conference's performance is the primary criteria and not prefered ESPN viewing areas. The MWC backed out of the ESPN format as they refused to be part of the Wed/Thurs nite scheduling as several of the schools(such as TCU/BYU/AFA) were opposed to it on behalf of student concerns. So you are not going to convince us that we are some little wimpy conference that stands NO chance of being Greatly considered as a serious member in the next BCS evaluation.

So Please, don't try to use Carl Rove fear tactics why TCU must go to the BE, much less accept a partial membership. How about, hey, we like you and want you to be a full partner in our league and if you choose to take non FB athletics else where, then that's OK too..... Toads prefer a little sugar and won't tolerate much salt in the eye... nor would you..?..

MWC we get to see TCU play most if not all games on Saturdays and in locations like Las Vegas and San Diego which are nice road trips. In the Big East we will be playing any meaningful game on a weeknight most likely and in locations that don't quite compare.

Football only, not enough money in the Big East coffers to pull that one off.

Good luck to the Big East teams and TCU will be sitting happy in the MWC.

(11-07-2010 09:15 PM)StinnettFrog Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 08:20 PM)Horny Toad Wrote:  

(11-06-2010 11:47 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Horny toad, while we could debate the criteria, it is what it is currently, and the MWC simply can't meet it realistically. You'd need New Mexico, CSU, & UNLV to all become top 40 teams next year, along with keeping TCU & Utah at their current level.

I appreciate your 'trying' to point out your interpretation of criteria generalities. We've never questioned TV set#s nor $s... only '''stength of conferences'''.
1. MWC, check out the AP or BCS for the top 25 the last 2 years(as I believe you know what it is this year... compared to BE....) and keep
in mind the AP writers from the E Coast/M-West dominates the votes. They don't seem to be in denial...
2. 2009 MWC went 4-1 in Bowls with our top team TCU losing to a top 5 team in the Fiesta Bowl & defeating 2 PAC-10 teams in other bowls!
3. Boise matches Utah's 'stength' easily and Nevada/Fresno easily match BYU for 'strength'... so , MWC is loosing 2 of its top 4 teams and adds
3 of the top 4 WAC teams; we need not discuss this one any more...
4. You are welcome to google 'CBS conference power rankings' and the the Nov. 2 rankings are... it wouldn't be appropriate for me to list the results...
lets just say BE is ranked 3 leagues behind MWC. Could only locate only 1 ranking system(CBS) that included both AQ/non AQ conferences...
5. I would be glad to look at any other link on league power rankings you could help me locate... lets avoid any possible computer types please.

As we all know, the conference's performance is the primary criteria and not prefered ESPN viewing areas. The MWC backed out of the ESPN format as they refused to be part of the Wed/Thurs nite scheduling as several of the schools(such as TCU/BYU/AFA) were opposed to it on behalf of student concerns. So you are not going to convince us that we are some little wimpy conference that stands NO chance of being Greatly considered as a serious member in the next BCS evaluation.

So Please, don't try to use Carl Rove fear tactics why TCU must go to the BE, much less accept a partial membership. How about, hey, we like you and want you to be a full partner in our league and if you choose to take non FB athletics else where, then that's OK too..... Toads prefer a little sugar and won't tolerate much salt in the eye... nor would you..?..

MWC we get to see TCU play most if not all games on Saturdays and in locations like Las Vegas and San Diego which are nice road trips. In the Big East we will be playing any meaningful game on a weeknight most likely and in locations that don't quite compare.

Football only, not enough money in the Big East coffers to pull that one off.

Good luck to the Big East teams and TCU will be sitting happy in the MWC.

Yep you forgot those wonderful trips to Boise, Alburquerque and Laramie. LOL
Yep that trumps, NYC, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Cincy, Louisville
Glad for TCU you are not making their decisions

(11-07-2010 09:15 PM)StinnettFrog Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 08:20 PM)Horny Toad Wrote:  

(11-06-2010 11:47 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Horny toad, while we could debate the criteria, it is what it is currently, and the MWC simply can't meet it realistically. You'd need New Mexico, CSU, & UNLV to all become top 40 teams next year, along with keeping TCU & Utah at their current level.

I appreciate your 'trying' to point out your interpretation of criteria generalities. We've never questioned TV set#s nor $s... only '''stength of conferences'''.
1. MWC, check out the AP or BCS for the top 25 the last 2 years(as I believe you know what it is this year... compared to BE....) and keep
in mind the AP writers from the E Coast/M-West dominates the votes. They don't seem to be in denial...
2. 2009 MWC went 4-1 in Bowls with our top team TCU losing to a top 5 team in the Fiesta Bowl & defeating 2 PAC-10 teams in other bowls!
3. Boise matches Utah's 'stength' easily and Nevada/Fresno easily match BYU for 'strength'... so , MWC is loosing 2 of its top 4 teams and adds
3 of the top 4 WAC teams; we need not discuss this one any more...
4. You are welcome to google 'CBS conference power rankings' and the the Nov. 2 rankings are... it wouldn't be appropriate for me to list the results...
lets just say BE is ranked 3 leagues behind MWC. Could only locate only 1 ranking system(CBS) that included both AQ/non AQ conferences...
5. I would be glad to look at any other link on league power rankings you could help me locate... lets avoid any possible computer types please.

As we all know, the conference's performance is the primary criteria and not prefered ESPN viewing areas. The MWC backed out of the ESPN format as they refused to be part of the Wed/Thurs nite scheduling as several of the schools(such as TCU/BYU/AFA) were opposed to it on behalf of student concerns. So you are not going to convince us that we are some little wimpy conference that stands NO chance of being Greatly considered as a serious member in the next BCS evaluation.

So Please, don't try to use Carl Rove fear tactics why TCU must go to the BE, much less accept a partial membership. How about, hey, we like you and want you to be a full partner in our league and if you choose to take non FB athletics else where, then that's OK too..... Toads prefer a little sugar and won't tolerate much salt in the eye... nor would you..?..

MWC we get to see TCU play most if not all games on Saturdays and in locations like Las Vegas and San Diego which are nice road trips. In the Big East we will be playing any meaningful game on a weeknight most likely and in locations that don't quite compare.

Football only, not enough money in the Big East coffers to pull that one off.

Good luck to the Big East teams and TCU will be sitting happy in the MWC.

You can throw a hissy fit all you want the people who truly matter, the TCU administration, don't want to sit in the MWC so get over it.

(11-07-2010 08:20 PM)Horny Toad Wrote:  

(11-06-2010 11:47 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Horny toad, while we could debate the criteria, it is what it is currently, and the MWC simply can't meet it realistically. You'd need New Mexico, CSU, & UNLV to all become top 40 teams next year, along with keeping TCU & Utah at their current level.

I appreciate your 'trying' to point out your interpretation of criteria generalities. We've never questioned TV set#s nor $s... only '''stength of conferences'''.
1. MWC, check out the AP or BCS for the top 25 the last 2 years(as I believe you know what it is this year... compared to BE....) and keep
in mind the AP writers from the E Coast/M-West dominates the votes. They don't seem to be in denial...
2. 2009 MWC went 4-1 in Bowls with our top team TCU losing to a top 5 team in the Fiesta Bowl & defeating 2 PAC-10 teams in other bowls!
3. Boise matches Utah's 'stength' easily and Nevada/Fresno easily match BYU for 'strength'... so , MWC is loosing 2 of its top 4 teams and adds
3 of the top 4 WAC teams; we need not discuss this one any more...
4. You are welcome to google 'CBS conference power rankings' and the the Nov. 2 rankings are... it wouldn't be appropriate for me to list the results...
lets just say BE is ranked 3 leagues behind MWC. Could only locate only 1 ranking system(CBS) that included both AQ/non AQ conferences...
5. I would be glad to look at any other link on league power rankings you could help me locate... lets avoid any possible computer types please.

As we all know, the conference's performance is the primary criteria and not prefered ESPN viewing areas. The MWC backed out of the ESPN format as they refused to be part of the Wed/Thurs nite scheduling as several of the schools(such as TCU/BYU/AFA) were opposed to it on behalf of student concerns. So you are not going to convince us that we are some little wimpy conference that stands NO chance of being Greatly considered as a serious member in the next BCS evaluation.

So Please, don't try to use Carl Rove fear tactics why TCU must go to the BE, much less accept a partial membership. How about, hey, we like you and want you to be a full partner in our league and if you choose to take non FB athletics else where, then that's OK too..... Toads prefer a little sugar and won't tolerate much salt in the eye... nor would you..?..

Look, no disrespect, but nobody is using any tactics on you because don't care what you think we care what your administration think. And I just showed you that your administration is working on a football-only membership. You can rave about the wonders of the MWC but I just showed you quotes from BCS and TV consultants, not fans and message board people BCS and TV consultants who just said that they don't give a damn about the list you just gave in your post. That's not me being a smartass that's me telling you that complaining to us isn't going to change THEIR opinion, bottomline. Re-read the post I just gave you. And please stop with the "if you choose to do this or that" we don't choose to do anything because we don't run the conference. But I just showed you that the people who DO run the conference and the people who DO run TCU are talking to each other, seem to have come to some agreement, and football-only is an option. And the MWC will never get an autobid so accept it. And that's not my opinion that's the opinion of the people who, you know, actually run these things.

[quoitew]I appreciate your 'trying' to point out your interpretation of criteria generalities. We've never questioned TV set#s nor $s... only '''stength of conferences'''.
1. MWC, check out the AP or BCS for the top 25 the last 2 years(as I believe you know what it is this year... compared to BE....) and keep
in mind the AP writers from the E Coast/M-West dominates the votes. They don't seem to be in denial...
2. 2009 MWC went 4-1 in Bowls with our top team TCU losing to a top 5 team in the Fiesta Bowl & defeating 2 PAC-10 teams in other bowls!
3. Boise matches Utah's 'stength' easily and Nevada/Fresno easily match BYU for 'strength'... so , MWC is loosing 2 of its top 4 teams and adds
3 of the top 4 WAC teams; we need not discuss this one any more...
4. You are welcome to google 'CBS conference power rankings' and the the Nov. 2 rankings are... it wouldn't be appropriate for me to list the results...
lets just say BE is ranked 3 leagues behind MWC. Could only locate only 1 ranking system(CBS) that included both AQ/non AQ conferences...
5. I would be glad to look at any other link on league power rankings you could help me locate... lets avoid any possible computer types please.[/quote]

And my response to that would be this:
There’s another scenario in play that could greatly enhance the MWC’s status and perhaps move it onto the same level with the other big six conferences that receive automatic berths into the BCS.

The Mountain West is two years into a four-year evaluation period that measures conference power. It’s based on the strength of the league champion, how many teams are rated in the BCS top 25 and average ranking for the entire conference.

The BCS has not fully divulged what thresholds must be met for the MWC to gain an automatic qualifying berth, which makes the whole process sound eerily like joining a fraternity. But if the MWC could join the big six club, membership would have its privileges and its annual BCS revenue would likely double.

“We look at consistency over time,” Nebraska’s Perlman said. “Looking forward, I don’t know that they change the equation, but certainly their performance over time makes it difficult to not look at them.”

Quote:As we all know, the conference's performance is the primary criteria and not prefered ESPN viewing areas. The MWC backed out of the ESPN format as they refused to be part of the Wed/Thurs nite scheduling as several of the schools(such as TCU/BYU/AFA) were opposed to it on behalf of student concerns. So you are not going to convince us that we are some little wimpy conference that stands NO chance of being Greatly considered as a serious member in the next BCS evaluation.

Really?

“When you talk about adding value, from a media standpoint, the Boise States and the Utahs add very little,” said Barry Frank, a media consultant from IMG who worked with the BCS on its new TV deal with ESPN. “They’re not population centers. And speaking from a personal standpoint, in football terms, I can tell you that networks look at them as ‘Johnny-come-latelies’ to the national scene that don’t play the kind of schedules that major conferences play.”

So you can act tough and act like you're standing up to us and looking down and us and rave about the superiority of the MWC, I really couldn't care less about that. But stop ignoring the fact I just gave you. The BCS DOES NOT want the MWC and I just showed you that. And that was with Utah and BYU and what I just showed you said that Boise wasn't going to change a thing because they didn't bring TV sets. That's a fact. Period.

Let me start off this post by saying I believe the majority of posters on this board WANT TCU in for all-sports and think it is a mistake for the conference to offer football only, unless it is only for years 2012 and 2013 with an understanding that the Frogs are in for all sports thereafter.

What some posters are attempting to say in this thread that if the Frogs are offered a football only invite they may accept it, though they will not like it.

(11-07-2010 08:20 PM)Horny Toad Wrote:  

(11-06-2010 11:47 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Horny toad, while we could debate the criteria, it is what it is currently, and the MWC simply can't meet it realistically. You'd need New Mexico, CSU, & UNLV to all become top 40 teams next year, along with keeping TCU & Utah at their current level.

I appreciate you're 'trying' to point out your interpretation of criteria generalities. We've never questioned TV set#s nor $s... only ''strength of conferences''.

It's not an interpretation of the criteria. The top-to-bottom strength of a conference is done by taking where each of its members ranked in the BCS Computer Polls at the end of the regular season and then divide that number by the number of teams in the conference. That number then has to look like it is comparable to the other 6 AQ conferences over a 4-year period, not a single year snapshot.

The future MWC conference (Boise, TCU, Air Force, Fresno, Nevada, SD State, CSU, New Mexico, Wyoming, and UNLV) is in the third year of a 4-year review. For 2008, that average top-to-bottom strength for those 10 teams was 60.8. For 2009 the average rank was 62.3. So far for 2010, it is doing slightly better at 57.75 but that is still a 3-year average of 60.28.

The Big East average in 2008 was 46.37. Last year it was 42.5. So far this year it is 63.12 for a 3 year average of 50.66. But this year is the first over the past 5 years that the league's top-to-bottom average will be over 47.

And even with as bad a year as the league is having this year the MWC would have to hope that the BE had a similar year next year in order to get within 8 overall points. The difference between the current BE number and that of the next worse conference is still only a 2 point difference. Which means we still look like an AQ conference.

Btw, with TCU's numbers added to the Big East the 3-year average drops to 45.66. Which simply goes to show that having 1 Top 5 team and no other teams that rank between 80-118 is better than having 2 Top 5 teams with 4 teams that continually rank between 80-118.

Cheers,
Neil

(11-07-2010 10:56 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Let me start off this post by saying I believe the majority of posters on this board WANT TCU in for all-sports and think it is a mistake for the conference to offer football only, unless it is only for years 2012 and 2013 with an understanding that the Frogs are in for all sports thereafter.

What some posters are attempting to say in this thread that if the Frogs are offered a football only invite they may accept it, though they will not like it.

(11-07-2010 08:20 PM)Horny Toad Wrote:  

(11-06-2010 11:47 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Horny toad, while we could debate the criteria, it is what it is currently, and the MWC simply can't meet it realistically. You'd need New Mexico, CSU, & UNLV to all become top 40 teams next year, along with keeping TCU & Utah at their current level.

I appreciate you're 'trying' to point out your interpretation of criteria generalities. We've never questioned TV set#s nor $s... only ''strength of conferences''.

It's not an interpretation of the criteria. The top-to-bottom strength of a conference is done by taking where each of its members ranked in the BCS Computer Polls at the end of the regular season and then divide that number by the number of teams in the conference. That number then has to look like it is comparable to the other 6 AQ conferences over a 4-year period, not a single year snapshot.

The future MWC conference (Boise, TCU, Air Force, Fresno, Nevada, SD State, CSU, New Mexico, Wyoming, and UNLV) is in the third year of a 4-year review. For 2008, that average top-to-bottom strength for those 10 teams was 60.8. For 2009 the average rank was 62.3. So far for 2010, it is doing slightly better at 57.75 but that is still a 3-year average of 60.28.

The Big East average in 2008 was 46.37. Last year it was 42.5. So far this year it is 63.12 for a 3 year average of 50.66. But this year is the first over the past 5 years that the league's top-to-bottom average will be over 47.

And even with as bad a year as the league is having this year the MWC would have to hope that the BE had a similar year next year in order to get within 8 overall points. The difference between the current BE number and that of the next worse conference is still only a 2 point difference. Which means we still look like an AQ conference.

Btw, with TCU's numbers added to the Big East the 3-year average drops to 45.66. Which simply goes to show that having 1 Top 5 team and no other teams that rank between 80-118 is better than having 2 Top 5 teams with 4 teams that continually rank between 80-118.

Cheers,
Neil

+1. Horny Toad, I'll ignore the fact that you talked down to me about 5 times in your response, and summarize by saying that 95% of what you mentioned is simply not part of the BCS criteria. I don't care if you think it's fair, but random things like CBS power rankings have no bearing, simply put. 6 computer rankings are all that matter on that side of things, as they make up the entire computer aspect of the BCS rankings.

Overall, the MWC flat out is not qualifying under the current criteria in 2012. Why would I be trying to make idle threats, its not as if you are any sort of decision maker that I need to convince. I was trying to explain the process but if you want to ignore reality be my guest.

(11-07-2010 10:38 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  [quoitew]I appreciate your 'trying' to point out your interpretation of criteria generalities. We've never questioned TV set#s nor $s... only '''stength of conferences'''.
1. MWC, check out the AP or BCS for the top 25 the last 2 years(as I believe you know what it is this year... compared to BE....) and keep
in mind the AP writers from the E Coast/M-West dominates the votes. They don't seem to be in denial...
2. 2009 MWC went 4-1 in Bowls with our top team TCU losing to a top 5 team in the Fiesta Bowl & defeating 2 PAC-10 teams in other bowls!
3. Boise matches Utah's 'stength' easily and Nevada/Fresno easily match BYU for 'strength'... so , MWC is loosing 2 of its top 4 teams and adds
3 of the top 4 WAC teams; we need not discuss this one any more...
4. You are welcome to google 'CBS conference power rankings' and the the Nov. 2 rankings are... it wouldn't be appropriate for me to list the results...
lets just say BE is ranked 3 leagues behind MWC. Could only locate only 1 ranking system(CBS) that included both AQ/non AQ conferences...
5. I would be glad to look at any other link on league power rankings you could help me locate... lets avoid any possible computer types please.

And my response to that would be this:
There’s another scenario in play that could greatly enhance the MWC’s status and perhaps move it onto the same level with the other big six conferences that receive automatic berths into the BCS.

AND... OK

The Mountain West is two years into a four-year evaluation period that measures conference power. It’s based on the strength of the league champion, how many teams are rated in the BCS top 25 and average ranking for the entire conference.

EXACTLY...THAT'S AN AREA WHERE WE LOOK VERY STRONG!


The BCS has not fully divulged what thresholds must be met for the MWC to gain an automatic qualifying berth, which makes the whole process sound eerily like joining a fraternity. But if the MWC could join the big six club, membership would have its privileges and its annual BCS revenue would likely double.

IT IS A FRATERNITY ... AND THEY USUALLY WANT WINNERS

“We look at consistency over time,” Nebraska’s Perlman said. “Looking forward, I don’t know that they change the equation, but certainly their performance over time makes it difficult to not look at them.”

AS SHOWN ABOVE ... WE ARE CONSISTENT. A 5TH GRADER COULD UNDERSTAND PERLMAN'S NEGATIVE SLANT IS SELF SERVING.

Quote:As we all know, the conference's performance is the primary criteria and not prefered ESPN viewing areas. The MWC backed out of the ESPN format as they refused to be part of the Wed/Thurs nite scheduling as several of the schools(such as TCU/BYU/AFA) were opposed to it on behalf of student concerns. So you are not going to convince us that we are some little wimpy conference that stands NO chance of being Greatly considered as a serious member in the next BCS evaluation.

Really?

“When you talk about adding value, from a media standpoint, the Boise States and the Utahs add very little,” said Barry Frank, a media consultant from IMG who worked with the BCS on its new TV deal with ESPN. “They’re not population centers. And speaking from a personal standpoint, in football terms, I can tell you that networks look at them as ‘Johnny-come-latelies’ to the national scene that don’t play the kind of schedules that major conferences play.”

AGAIN AND AGAIN, YOU ARE TALKING MEDIA, NOT I ... STAY ON TOPIC PLEASE ... CONFERENCE STRENGTH PRIMARY CRITERIA...

So you can act tough and act like you're standing up to us and looking down and us and rave about the superiority of the MWC, I really couldn't care less about that. But stop ignoring the fact I just gave you. The BCS DOES NOT want the MWC and I just showed you that. And that was with Utah and BYU and what I just showed you said that Boise wasn't going to change a thing because they didn't bring TV sets. That's a fact. Period.
[/quote]

YOU'VE SHOWED ME NOTHING.... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING... EXCEPT THAT
YOU JUST SHOWED YOURSELF THAT YOU ARE IN TOTAL DENIAL AGAIN.
THERE IS NO TOUGH OR STANDING UP TO OR LOOKING DOWN... JUST STANDING UP FOR MY SCHOOL/THEN IT'S OPTIONS...FOLLOWING YOUR FRINGE GROUP'S ARROGANT COMMENTS... THAT'S HOW ALL THIS SILLY ASS STUFF STARTED. IF EVERYTHING STAYS THE SAME THE MWC HAS A BETTER CHANCE ENTERING THE BCS THAN THE BE HAS STAYING IN THE BCS ...DENIAL OR NO DENIAL. ANY OUTSIDER CAN READ THIS BOARD AND PLAINLY SEE THAT A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE BOARD IS TOTALLY UPSET AND FRUSTRATED WITH THE FOOTBALL/THE HYBRID/ POACHING DISCUSSIONS/AND THE INSANE NOTRE DAME NON-FB MEMBER WHO VOTES ON FOOTBALL.?. JUST CRAZY STUFF LIKE THAT... AND WITH CARRYING ALL THAT GARBAGE AROUND WITH THE DISTANCES ... JUST MAYBE THE TOADS ARE BETTER OFF WHERE THEY ARE AT OR ONE OF THE OTHER OPTIONS... MAYBE IT'S JUST A REALLY WRONG FIT FOR TCU. GOOD LUCK TO YOU ALL AND HOPE YOU GET IT WORKED OUT WITH OR WITHOUT TCU!!

(11-08-2010 12:50 AM)Horny Toad Wrote:  IF EVERYTHING STAYS THE SAME THE MWC HAS A BETTER CHANCE ENTERING THE BCS THAN THE BE HAS STAYING IN THE BCS ...DENIAL OR NO DENIAL.

Note to self: The caps key does not make incorrect points valid.

TCU is not a BIG EAST school...They will not work in the long run.

(11-08-2010 01:11 AM)cardshouse Wrote:  TCU is not a BIG EAST school...They will not work in the long run.

I totally agree. Lets hope those who make the decisions agree.

Hey look I don't care if you're angry with me all I did was provide you with facts so you just have to deal with it. These things aren't my opinions these are things coming from the BCS, ESPN, TV and your administration so getting pissed off at us is just a waste of your time and energy. Get upset with the BCS, TV and your adminstration don't act like youre tough and standing to them and the Big East just because youre making angry posts.

(11-08-2010 07:44 AM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Hey look I don't care if you're angry with me all I did was provide you with facts so you just have to deal with it. These things aren't my opinions these are things coming from the BCS, ESPN, TV and your administration so getting pissed off at us is just a waste of your time and energy. Get upset with the BCS, TV and your adminstration don't act like youre tough and standing to them and the Big East just because youre making angry posts.

God Bless You...

(11-08-2010 04:59 AM)StinnettFrog Wrote:  

(11-08-2010 01:11 AM)cardshouse Wrote:  TCU is not a BIG EAST school...They will not work in the long run.

I totally agree. Lets hope those who make the decisions agree.

Thanx for agreeing ... I'm just not sure TCU has decided that, yet.

(11-08-2010 04:59 AM)StinnettFrog Wrote:  

(11-08-2010 01:11 AM)cardshouse Wrote:  TCU is not a BIG EAST school...They will not work in the long run.

I totally agree. Lets hope those who make the decisions agree.

Thanks for agreeing("long run") ... I'm just not sure if TCU has figured that out, yet.